About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
. so i say to my friend, john boehner, the speaker of the house of representatives, you control matters on the floor. no one else does. you have the ability and you're the only one that has the ability to put this on the floor for a vote. he should do that. that would be the american way. would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for up to four hours with the senate permitted therein for up to ten minutes each with the majority controlling the 230eurs minutes. -- controlling the first 30 minutes. mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: ms. stabenow: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. ms. stabenow: i would ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you. madam president, i rise toda
boehner sent a proposal to the white house yesterday, counterbid as it is being called. what do you think? >> guest: i think it is a great opening start. actually it makes very tangible with the speaker committed to after the election which is we are going to put it on the table so that question is settled and we are not talking about how much and what way, but that is an enormous step forward honestly by the republicans or concessions. not something we want to do but something we recognize we have to do to get there. so i think the speaker's proposal directs us to words what some of the problems are which are entitlement spending. that is what is driving the debt and we can't pussyfoot around it. we can't solve it with just revenue, you have to have reform. while we like the ryan budget and i think i would be the appropriate way to go, they picked up elements of some of the proposals of ernst and bowles and as senator simpson made in an effort to reach awards. so i think the speaker needs to get a lot of credit for effort and opening position on what will hopefully be a productive discus
to the house of representatives. did speaker boehner and the republicans in the house promptly pass this popular bill and send it to president obama for his signature? did they move to protect 98% of middle-class families from this tax hike in january? no. no. they decided to hold the middle-class tax cuts passed by the senate hostage in an attempt to push for tax cuts for the folks they care the most about, the top 2% of highest earning households. republicans fighting for millionaires and billionaires is not a new story. in 2001, president george w. bush decided to spend a large portion of the surpluses he inherited from president clinton to cut tax rates. many democrats opposed him then because the tax cuts were unfair, favoring the highest-income americans. to overcome that obstacle, the republicans resorted to a parliamentary technique, budget reconciliation, a maneuver that allowed for passage of their tax cuts but forced them to expire after 2010, at the end of the ten-year budget window. so we scroll forward to 2010. as 2010 ended, president obama and many democrats in congr
a letter urging speaker boehner to take the last hexit before the cliff. neither president obama nor democrats in congress have ever been ambiguous about our proposal to provide economic security for 98% of american families and 97% of small businesses while asking the wealthiest 2% to contribute just a little more to stop this runaway debt. and now that even a dyed in the wool conservative like senator coburn of oklahoma has endorsed the democratic approach, here's what he said, "i know we have to raise revenue. i would rather see the rates go up," he said. he's been heavily involved in everything that's happened in the last several years in washington dealing with debt. when he joins in, that's really significant. it is apparent how this will end. the only question is, when will it end? it's how long will speaker boehner make middle-class families wait for relief and how long will he force the financial markets to wait for u un-- wait for certainty? the longer he delays, the greater i think ris the risk to. so i urge him, don't listen to me, listen to your own caucus. listen to pru
for it, either. just listen to the voices within speaker boehner's own party. there we go. a kent conrad i am not in terms of my facility with charts. it's clear that speaker boehner has needed cover from his right flank before he could agree to any deal on taxes with the president. the speaker didn't have it before, but he sure has it now. when "the wall street journal" editorial page says that decoupling would not go against conservatives' antitax principles, that gives a whole lot of cover to the speaker. when grover norquist refuses to declare whether decoupling would violate his group's pledge, that, too, gives a whole lot of cover to the speaker. and when more and more rank-and-file republicans come out publicly every day in favor of passing the senate bill, that, too, gives cover to the speaker. you really have to absolute cram tom cole. he was the first one on the other side to dare speak the truth about what should be done on taxes and he's been on tv almost every day making the case to his party in public. the day after congressman cole went public he was dismissed as having a
to the speaker today, speaker boehner. let the house vote. if they voted overwhelmingly, mr. president, one republican suggested, one republican house member that more than half of the republicans in the house would vote for giving the tax security to people who make less than $250,000 a year. so i say let's have speaker boehner call upon the republicans in the house to add 25 or so votes to what the democrats would do, and you'd have 218 votes and we could go on to taking care of the fiscal cliff. mr. president, my friend protests too much. the senate is broken and needs to be fixed and we need to change the rules. we change them all the time. last year we changed the rules. why? because, mr. president, what they were doing -- republicans -- just to stop and slow down everything, after two cloture votes -- remember that takes a long time to file two cloture petitions, a couple of days and then 30 hours. two cloture votes, 60 hours. you would think the debate was all over. oh, no, what they decided they were going to do is suspend the rules and have more votes. we put up with it for awhile.
, but all indications were that last summer the president speaker boehner were having a secret negotiations about the budget. at the white house was willing to consider raising the eligibility age on medicare, and changing the way cost-of-living adjustments in social security. those two ideas, as you said was that an election, should those two ideas still be on the table now that the president and speaker are entering to go? >> when it comes to medicare and medicaid and social security, and many of us have dealt with it, it's not part of the budget discussions specifically so it doesn't have to be done right now and it's not as much risk, we can deal with and wished. but but when it comes to medicare and medicaid and health care generally, i think that we start on medicare, making sure we're committed to medicare. as a promise would make your seniors. not just current seniors the future seemed even 54-year-olds, even 44-year-olds, 34-year-olds. it is something we start with that promise to keep the universal and keep benefits. once we make a decision that we're not going to shift costs to i
. >> how speaker john boehner said right now, we are nowhere in terms of the fiscal cliff negotiation. as the president agree with that assessment? >> no, he doesn't. i think aesop secretary geithner over the weekend. another sunday shows. fairly clearly expressing the president's position to talk about the proposal that the president has pafford and express our belief that there has been progress in that we can achieve a bipartisan agreement. the obstacle remains, at this point, the refusal to acknowledge by republican leaders that there is no deal that achieve the kind of balance necessary without raising on the top 2% of americans, and we look forward to the presentation by republican leaders and their id ideas for spending cuts come as you know. as you know, secretary geithner has pafford a proposal that includes $600 billion in detailed spending cuts in health care and other entitlement programs, and that comes on top of over a trillion dollars in spending cuts as part of the budget control act. and it is contending with our proposals for how to achieve the kinds of revenue from
and that was what john boehner used as is leverage a year-and-a-half ago in his talks with president obama so there's a belief on the part of democrats that they would like to get this idea in common circulation and also trying to manufacture some dialogue, the debt ceiling really isn't the kind of leverage that it was a year-and-a-half ago. you saw some of that from the president yesterday when he was talking more last week when he was talking about he is not going to play that game anymore. and then it turns out the democrats had enough votes, if it were to be put to a majority vote to pass it through the senate and instead, senator mcconnell insisted that it requires 60 to get past the filibuster. >> on the republican side how would they vote on the fiscal cliff for raising the debt ceiling help the gop make their case? >> guest: i am not sure it would, in all honesty. a lot of people, politically, don't know how effective it would be. >> any indication how things are going, how things are going behind-the-scenes on negotiations on the fiscal cliff? >> there is no public indication. you talk to
. >> chris, you understand the politics of the house from both sides. can john boehner cut a deal without eric cantor and paul ryan? >> well i have a pretty good understanding of the house, but i'm always wondering into leadership politics. just to broaden the question a little bit, i think the question is whether or not the speaker is going to be able to bring a good part of his caucus, and that will require a united leadership team. >> just to interrupt, and talking short-term. >> i understand and i think that is going to be a requirement. i think one of the decisions that the speaker will have to make is whether he is prepared to put a bill in agreement on the floor of the house that by not have the majority of republicans in the house to support. that is one of the questions, because senator corker points out that there are a number of ways to say yes on this but it's not clear in my mind whether there is a way that necessarily brings the majority of the house republicans. not that we can't get a majority in the house but the hastert rule after speaker hastert you have to have half th
boehner took a position the day after the campaign that those who are willing to, but not increase rates. that explains why we don't think that works. born in insisting on rates just out of spite or out of any kind of partisan victory. but rather because we need to raise a certain amount of revenue. now we've seen some movement over the last several days among some republicans. i think there's a recognition that may be they can expect some rate increases as long as it's serious entitlement reform and conditional spending cuts. if we can get the leadership on the republican side to take that framework, to his knowledge that reality, then then i'm yours actually aren't that far apart. another way of readiness as we can probably solve this in about a week. it is not that tough. but we made that conceptual breakthrough that says we need to do a balanced plan. that's what's best for the economy. that's what the american people voted for and that's ever going to get it done. one last point, most are taking questions. there have been reports and these are not necessarily confirmed. maybe some o
this is not good leadership, and i hope and i know senator mcconnell and speaker boehner have pleaded with the president to talk about these long-term systemic problems. social security, medicare, medicaid and interest on the debt is almost 60% of what we spend in this country, and they are growing at three times inflation rate. this is unsustainable. this is what erskine bowles, the man the president chose to head his debt commission, has warned us about. in fact, the house proposal that indicated they would accept an $800 billion tax increase was a good-faith attempt to reach out to the president based on what mr. bowles has said. they basically call it the erskine bowles plan. that's what he suggested. how the tax rates wouldn't go up, but the deductions would be eliminated. he would have a simpler, more flat tax system. you would bring in $800 billion more in revenue. they would use this revenue to help reduce our deficit. that's the kind of plan that's serious. but the president has hammered the house plan. secretary geithner says it is unacceptable. but it's erskine bowles' plan
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)